D-X

http://www.sanyo.com/entertainment/t...?productID=905

I cant get this model for $693.Think its a good deal for the price?

D-X

No opinions?ALl these views and no one can say anything?

DVD Josh

If it were me, I'd spend the extra $200 or so and get a better brand with a built in tuner.

Hendrik

...it ain't widescreen, so why bother...?...

. . . ? . . .

hypeiv

i wouldn't get a built in tuner till the sets with digital cable ready come out

D-X

This one has a built in tuner.Doesnt say on the site but on the physical box it does.

DVD Josh

I'm not a Sanyo fan, so I say again that if it were me, i'd spend the additional $$ and get a better brand. And if you are getting it for HDTV purpopses, Hendrik is right, might as well not if it isn't WS.

nekobus

There is still a lot of 4:3 material out there, with more being released all the time (think TV series). I think the decision would depend on the ratio of 4:3 to 16:9 material a person watches.

D-X,

You might want to check out this thread on this set from over at the avsforum:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=395229

IMO, the sub $1K 32" sets with built-in tuners are really going to help drive the acceptance of HDTV. It used to be the sub-$1K market was limited to a few 27" models without tuners. I can't tell you how many people I know who have been interested in buying a HD set at the $1K pricepoint, but were turned off when they found out they need to buy an expensive, special tuner (or some other spendy setup like cable or BCS).

These new sets along with the Olympic games are really going to boost the household HDTV set numbers this year.

Hendrik

...but... but... but... you can watch 4:3 material on a 16:9 screen - or didn't you know...?...

...and if a person watches a lot of movies, then virtually all post-ca. 1953 made-in-Hollywood movies are "wider" than 4:3...

...so I stand by my question: why bother getting a 4:3 HDTV...?...
(in fact, I don't understand that they even offer such models!)

. . . . . .

broadwayblue

yeah, i can't see the point of going 4:3 at this point...especially on a HD capable set. but that's just me.

nekobus

Yes, thank you, I'm more than aware of this fact.

Keep in mind that some people watch mostly 4:3 material and don't want to deal with stretch modes or gray bars on the sides of the image. There is a lot of 4:3 material out there, for example, look at all the old TV series being released on dvd.

As I said before, I think the material a person watches should be a major consideration when making a display purchase decision. For example, for someone who watches mostly 4:3 material, a 32" 4:3 set with a build-in HD tuner at $700 looks pretty good when compared with a 30" 16:9 one without a built-in HD tuner for the same or higher price.

Hendrik

...but... but... but...

1) a lot of newer ( = more recent ) (certainly true of European TV programming!!! ) TV material will be 1.78:1 ( = 16:9 )...

2) a 16: 9 without a tuner???... every 16:9 I've ever seen ( from 17" diagonal and up, both LCD and plasma models ) of course has (some kind of) a (separate) tuner --- otherwise how would you watch TV broadcasts on your widescreen TV...???...

(signed) Technical Nincompoop

. . . . . .

nekobus

While this may be true. It will be a while before ALL broadcast TV is widescreen. In addition, there is a huge back catalog of old television shows in 4:3 just waiting to be put on dvd.


I was referring to a built-in HD Tuner, which the Sanyo has (the original sentence has been edited to make this clear). By including a built-in HD tuner in a $700 HDTV, Sanyo has altered the price/performance equation for people shopping in the sub $1K price range.

FWIW, many plasma displays do not have a build-in tuner of any type. Manufacturers including NTSC tuners in some of their models is a fairly recent market trend.

D-X

They seem to be praising this TV a great deal.I was considering getting just a 27 inch HDTV but after reading this I am more inclined to get the 32 Sanyo instead.

I also find it funny how people make funof "Sanyo".That thread at AVS forums had a post about how Sanyo is the highest rated TV in terms of failing.

Probably just go with the 32!

rcraven

The thing that's making my decision difficult as to going widescreen or not is bang for the buck, really. I watch a lot of TV shows on DVD, so those will be mostly 4:3. Plus, say I have a choice between a 30" widescreen TV and a 32" inch 4:3 TV... the 32" will show a bigger 4:3 picture and the widescreen picture will only be slightly smaller. So, honestly, what would I be gaining out of getting the widescreen TV then?

DVD Josh

Absolutely not true.

nekobus

It is when you think in terms of total square inches of viewing area. Run the numbers here:

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

The 32" 4:3 set is only a maximum of 4.2% smaller than a 30" 16:9 set when watching 16:9 material. However, the viewing area when watching 4:3 material on a 32" 4:3 is a whopping 70.6% larger when compared with watching 4:3 material on a 30" 16:9 display.

If a person watches mostly 4:3 material, a 32" display is going to give a better bang for the buck, especially when considering the built-in HD tuner of the 32" set and its price v. a 30" 16:9 set without a HD tuner. 30" Samsung 16:9 sets run about $100 more than the Sanyo and the Samsungs lack the built-in HD tuner.

It really depends on each person's situation. I know a lot of HT types who pooh-pooh 4:3 displays (if it's not 16:9, it's not real HT ), but for someone who has a large collection of 4:3 material and watches mostly 4:3, a 4:3 set is a viable option, especially in the 30-32" display range in the sub $1K market. For someone who watches mostly 16:9 material and very little 4:3, they may be happier with a 16:9 set.

DVD Josh

I guess I will always be of the mind that if you are going to get an HDTV, you should go WS to maximize the viewing area. Might as well spend significantly less on a quality 32 non-HDTV

astrochimp

Thanks for that link to that size comparison chart nekobus.Was very interesting to me since ive been looking around at new tv's for what seems like forever lol.The front runner for me is a 34" WS(tube) and was cool to see the 4:3 ratio on it still equals my current 27 inch tv so i wouldnt be losing anything(actually id gain .8 of an inch lol) and of course with 16:9 mode id gain 25% over a 32" 4:3 tv.Some more stuff for me to think about anyway

Frank S

Actually, there is more 16x9 material being produced now then 4x3. All of ABC & CBS scripted shows are 16x9 (High Def) as well as quite a few NBC stuff. FOX will be jumping on the 16x9 HD bandwagon in a few months and currently does 480p WS on some of their shows.

I would say if you are buying a TV now with the thought of getting rid of it in a year or so and you watch mostly 4x3 then by all means get a 4x3 HDTV. But if you are going to keep it for a while then the choice should be 16x9 all the way! I myself just don't get the thought behind buying a HDTV that is obsolete out of the box. Just this past year we have seen a dramatic increase in High Def offerings and in the coming months we will have almost all NFL games in HD as well as a lot of other sports, and to be relagated to watching the new technology on a old technology formated TV, with letterboxing no less, is beyond me.

And be aware that 4x3 HDTV's use leser HD components then their 16x9 counterparts because they are shooting for the cheap price point and those who tend to not be picky about video quality. These 4x3 TV's are aimed at the J6P crowd who like 4x3 DVD's to "fill their TV's"

Hendrik

"...These 4x3 TV's are aimed at the J6P crowd who like 4x3 DVD's to "fill their TV's""

Hear! Hear!

. . . . . .

nekobus

No more than a cheap 16:9 display will use lesser HD components. It also depends what segment of the market you are talking about. Don't forget about sets like Sony's 40" XBR800, which is 4:3. You can't really call that shooting for a "cheap price point".

Just because a HD set is 4:3, does not in anyway mean it is "obsolete out of the box". You can still watch 16:9 material on it. While programming is moving towards 16:9, there is decades worth of 4:3 TV shows in the back catalog, a chunk of which is now heading to DVD.

It really depends on what you watch. I know people with huge dvd libraries of 4:3 material (not P&S, but in its original format), who don't watch a lot of sports or network programming, and don't like "gray bars" at the sides of an image (or stretched images), but are OK with black ones at the top and bottom of their screens. They are quite happy with 4:3 displays.

OTOH, I know people who watch nothing but sports and WS Hollywood movies and cry about the black bars, who are better off with their 16:9 sets. Except of course they don't understand why they still sometimes have black bars at the top and bottom of their screens.